Metarepresented Money

Keeping Ownership Decentralized

Money represents a future commodity possession. However, the one method of protective this possession rightful, therefore localised, is to cost commodities in metadiagrammatic cash. Any in any other case priced future possession won't stay truly localised.

Still, what's metadiagrammatic cash?

Direct Commodity Exchange

Let there be two homeowners A and B of commodities x and y, severally, of whom A desires y and B desires x. Without any cash -- whether or not metadiagrammatic or not -- the one method for each folk to acquire their desired commodities is straight from one another:

  
A --> y | B --> x  
x _____ | y  
y _____ | x  

Otherwise, A and B should delegate their commodity possession to person who then redistributes it between them. However, such a centralized answer would at to the last degree part contradict the identical possession, by at to the last degree part taking it away from its rightful controllers. Hence, entirely a localised answer can protect all commodity possession legitimizing this alternate, by A and B exdynamic x and y straight.

Individual Multiequivalence

Still, direct commodity alternate poses two issues:

1. Let there be now (as follows) three homeowners A, B, and C of 1 unit of commodity x, one all told y, and two models of y, severally. Additionally, let A need au fon the most models of y, whereas B and C need at to the last degree one all told x every. Then, the accessible unit of x shall be value one and a half models of y. So both A loses worth to B or C to A -- because the exchangeable portions of x and y aren't value the identical:

     A --> y | B --> x | C --> x  x(1.5y) | y _____ | 2y  

2. Let (as follows) A, B, and C individualal a single unit severally of x, y, and z. Additionally, let A need y, B need z, and C need x. Then, direct alternate couldn't give any of these three homeowners their desired commodity -- as none of them has the identical commodity wished by who owns their wished one. Moneyless alternate now can entirely occur if one all told their commodities turns into a cooccurring equal of the opposite two, at to the last degree for whom neither desires nor has it. So it turns into a multiequivalent, whether or not the opposite two homeowners in addition know of that multiequivalence or not. For instance, A power give x in alternate for z simply to then give z for y, this manner making z a multiequivalent (as asterisked):

     A --> y | B --> z | C --> x  x _____ | y _____ | z*  z* ____ | y _____ | x  y _____ | z _____ | x  

Likewise, this on an individual basis dealt with multiequivalence poses a brand new pair of issues:

1. It permits for conflicting oblique exchanges. In the identical instance, any two and even all three homeowners power at the same time attempt to deal with it. For occasion, whereas A would give x in alternate for z (then z for y), B power quite attempt to give y for a similar x (then x for z). To keep away from this battle, A, B, and C should delegate now their particular individual selection of dealing with multiequivalence to a public authority -- whether or not to their accordant one and even to different folk's. However, such a centralized answer would again at to the last degree part contradict their commodity possession, by at to the last degree part taking it away from them.
2. In addition to permitting the exchangeable portions of two commodities to not be equal, its indirectness will increase the chance of that mismatch, by requiring extra direct exchanges. Let the identical homeowners A, B, and C of a single unit severally of x, y, and z need au fon the most models severally of y, z, and x. Additionally, let a fourth owner D of two models of z need at to the last degree one all told x. Then, the accessible models of x and y will every be value one and a half models of z. Finally, again let z be a individual multiequivalent. Now, both A loses worth to C or D to A, then severally B to A and A to B -- because the exchangeable portions of x, y, and z aren't value the identical.

Social Multiequivalence (Money)

Fortunately, all these issues have the identical and entirely decision of a single multiequivalent m dynamic into social, or cash. Then, commodity homeowners can both give (promote) their commodities in alternate for m or give m for (purchase) the commodities they need. For instance, again let A, B, and C individualal commodities x, y, and z, severally. Still assumptive A desires y, B desires z, and C desires x, if now they entirely alternate their commodities for that m social multiequivalent -- at first closely-held simply by A -- then:

  
A --> y | B --> z | C --> x  
x, m __ | y _____ | z  
x, y __ | m _____ | z  
x, y __ | z _____ | m  
y, m __ | z _____ | x  

With social (quite than particular individual) multiequivalence:

1. There are entirely two exchanges (both a purchase or a promote) for every commodity, regardless who owns or desires which commodities.
2. All commodity homeowners alternate a standard (social) multiequivalent, which at long las returns to its unique owner.

Finally, with a social multiequivalent (cash) dividable into small and related enough models, any two commodities can all the time be equal, even when their exchangeable portions aren't. For instance, let commodities x and y be value three and two models of a social multiequivalent m, severally -- x(3m) and y(2m). Then, let their homeowners A of x and B of y be in addition the homeowners severally of two and three models of that cash -- A of twom and B of threem. If A and B need y and x, severally, notwithstandin entirely alternate their commodities for m models -- x for 3m and y for twom -- then:

  
A --> y _ | B --> x  
x(3m), 2m | y(2m), 3m  
y(2m), 3m | x(3m), 2m  

Privately Concrete Money

So cash should all the time intend a future commodity possession. Otherwise, folk's cash couldn't all the time intend their future possession of somematter it will possibly purchase. Additionally, to alternate their cash, these folk should share it with any of these with whom they alternate it. Indeed, folk's changed cash should intend their future commodity possession to all of them, although of various commodities as both consumers or Sellers. However, regardless of bought by the identical changed cash, this future possession girdle unique to both group, which therefore can't share it with the opposite one. Then, how can the 2 even so share its illustration between them?

How power cash be at the same time shareable as that which represents a future possession and ne'er shareable as every future possession it represents?

Is all cash entirely shareable as a substitute of in addition not shareable, by entirely representing an indefinite future possession as a substitute of in addition a particular one? Yet how power cash entirely purchase unspecified commodities? It can't, since folk can't purchase somematter with out specifying their future possession of it as diagrammatic by their cash to the vendor.

Still, regardless how the illustration of one matter not shareable can stay shareable:

1. Anymatter is just shareable by leftover concrete.
2. Anymatter is just expressible by leftover summary.

Consequently, since a future commodity possession is just shareable whereas diagrammatic by one matter concrete, it should be straight summary. Likewise, for its concrete illustration to be in addition expressible:

1. It should turn resolute be as summary as (not concretely distinguishable from) that future possession it represents.
2. Unlike the succeeding summary, intermediate illustration, its new undiagrammatic one should stay concrete.

Then, cash may very well be at the same time concrete, therefore shareable, and summary, therefore not shareable, severally as its undiagrammatic and diagrammatic representations. Indeed:

1. Abstractions are entirely shareable whereas diagrammatic by one matter concrete.
2. Indirect representations of somematter should embrace its summary illustration by one matter else.

However, even when diagrammatic, therefore summary, somematter representing cash should stay shareable, therefore concrete. Yet how power now an intermediate illustration of not directly diagrammatic cash be abstractly concrete? Only by having its concreteness privatized by a public business enterprise authority. Then, it turns into publically summary by leftover in camera concrete to it authority. So:

1. If already privatized, this in camera concrete cash should be diagrammatic by one matter publically concrete. For instance, when folk value their future commodity possession as gold entrusted to a public authority, this business enterprise gold is just shareable whereas diagrammatic by a publically concrete certification of that entrustment.
2. If not but privatized, the identical in camera concrete cash should intend its false denationalization. For instance, when folk value their future commodity possession as gold not entrusted to anybody, this business enterprise gold is just shareable whereas representing its false entrustment to a public authority.

Still, no non-public concreteness is expressible as cash until it's already cash, which should be at the same time shareable and ne'er shareable. So even to whom it's in camera concrete, cash should at the same time be straight summary, notwithstandin how? Only by representing a future enhance in its present quantity. There isn't any different method for its entire non-public concreteness to turn resolute be straight summary. Finally, no in camera concrete cash can depend on its future enlargement, to then turn resolute be as summary as its elevated future self, until it represents a debt. Indeed, all this abstractly self-expanded cash should at long las turn resolute be concrete:

1. In its summary extra over its already concrete sum to whoever holds it.
2. In its the rest to whoever owns it.

Then, its future enhance and current amount are liabilities, severally, of its homeowners to its custodians and conversely, so cash turns into a dual-principal debt. However, all non-public concreteness of this cash should even so be straight summary. By which even its already concrete half should turn resolute be an extra notwithstandin now single-principal, interest-paying debt of individuals not proudly owning it -- whether or not holding it or not -- to its custodians.

This method, each public authority with any non-public direction of different folk's cash should more and more contradict their future commodity possession, by taking it more and more away from them. For instance, a gold trustee will cost a charge to retail merchant business enterprise gold belonging to a different particular individual. Additionally, this entrusted cash will at long las turn resolute be a legal responsibility of one more particular individual -- regardless whether or not because the precise gold or not -- so storage charges turn resolute be curiosity cash in hand on lent cash created totally from its lending.

Metadiagrammatic Money (Metamoney)

Still, whether or not more and more centralized away from its rightful controllers or not, the business enterprise illustration should all the time be:

1. Concrete, to let consumers and Sellers share it.
2. Abstract, to forestall consumers and Sellers from sharing the entirely different future possession it represents to both group.

Then, learn how to reconcile its concreteness and abstractness with out permitting its concrete denationalization by a public authority?

Fortunately, regardless of au fon shareable by being concrete to all folk exdynamic it, or socially concrete, cash can quite be not shareable by being summary to every one all told them, or on an individual basis summary. Indeed, its illustration by the identical particular individual can at the same time:

1. Remain shareable as a part of a concrete course of.
2. Become not shareable as simply an summary object.

For instance, cryptocurrencies -- like Bitcoin -- use uneven encoding to intend cash as a straight non-public though not directly heralded quantity. So cash turns into metadiagrammatic, or metamoney, because it now not publically represents its entire in camera diagrammatic self. However, for such a strictly summary (numeric) cash to stay shareable, the method of certifying its previous proceedings or balances should turn resolute be a consensus amongst all its homeowners. Otherwise, they power be unable to agree on its future proceedings or balances, being thus prevented from utilizing it. Additionally, to certify somematter of their shared historical past, any consensus amongst these folk should be public to all of them. Consequently, the quite non-public representations of their metadiagrammatic cash are all the time straight uncertified. Then, regardless of leftover socially concrete as its publically licensed, accordant metarepresentations, cash turns into on an individual basis summary as its in camera uncertified, nonaccordant representations. While conversely, to publically certify folk's cash as metadiagrammatic of their proceedings or balances, that very same consensus course of:

1. Cannot publicize their direct representations of this cash, that are non-public.
2. Must stay localised, for all these folk to agree on the identical proceedings or balances.

Only this manner, no public authority can in camera direction different folk's cash, or then contradict the rightful future possession it represents, which as a substitute should in addition stay localised. Therefore, entirely metamoney can dead obtain the unique goal of cash, by protective not entirely folk's purchased or bought commodity possession truly localised, but in addition their priced future one.